Agenda item

The Strategic Director Children’s Services submits a report providing an overview of activity governed by Leicester City’s Corporate Parenting Forum over the last 12 months, (2014/15).  The Commission is recommended to consider the Report and pass any comments to the Executive for consideration when it received the Report.

Councillor Russell, Assistant City Mayor with responsibility for Children, Young People and Schools, introduced the Corporate Parenting Annual Report for 2014/15.

Councillor Russell explained that the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) had identified improvements for the Corporate Parenting Forum to make, such as making the best use of data to improve the lives of Looked After Children (LAC) and improving training.

There had been good engagement with the Forum by partners, such as the Children in Care Council, senior officers and representatives of foster carers.  However, although some Councillors had attended meetings of the Forum regularly, other Councillors’ attendance was inconsistent. 

It therefore was recommended that a standing group of members be established, who could receive additional training to help them fulfil the corporate parenting role.  It was hoped that the reconstituted group would meet monthly, from September 2015, with the first meeting including training for members of the Forum.  The Forum’s terms of reference would be reviewed as part of its reorganisation.

Representatives of the Children in Care Council had indicated that they would prefer the Corporate Parenting Forum to be a standing group, as this would reduce the need for them to keep repeating their experiences for new members.

The Interim Director Children, Young People and Families reminded the Commission that all Councillors had a corporate parenting responsibility.  This was summarised in the approach “as if this were my child”.  The Children in Care Council had identified the type of people they would like to be involved with.  This included things such as people who were passionate, trustworthy and would listen to them.

Priorities for the Corporate Parenting Forum included responding to the views of the Children In Care Council, undertaking the Council’s statutory responsibilities for corporate parenting and helping in the Council’s improvement journey following the recent Ofsted inspection, (minute 11, “Lessons Learned from the Recent Ofsted Inspection of Services for Children In Need of Help and Protection, Children Looked After and Care Leavers and Review of the Effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Board”, referred).

It also was recommended that the Corporate Parenting Forum should take over the role and function of the Safeguarding Children Panel.  The Panel previously had met in private with a small number of Councillors as members, but best practice recommended that the matters discussed should be heard in public, under the umbrella of the Corporate Parenting Forum.

Members requested that meetings of the reconstituted Corporate Parenting Forum be held at a time convenient to most Members.  In reply, Councillor Russell noted that a meeting time of 5.30 pm was being recommended, so that Councillors and Children in Care Council representatives would be available to attend.

It was noted that an Executive Group of the Corporate Parenting Forum would be established, to drive forward the business priorities of the Forum.  A fixed number of members of this Group had not been set, to enable the membership to change to reflect current need.  For example, representatives from Clinical Commissioning Groups, University Hospitals Leicester or the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services could be invited to join at different times.

Members noted that the Executive Group would need to look at detailed information in order to establish recommendations for the Forum to take forward.  This would help to filter the Forum’s very large workload by identifying topics, drawing together the various strands within topics and helping the Forum to focus where needed.  The Executive Group also would identify, if needed, who from the Forum’s partners should take particular pieces of work forward.

Councillor Russell stressed that the role of this Scrutiny Commission was far broader than the role of the Corporate Parenting Forum.  The latter had a very specific function, but the data presented to the Commission would be a lot broader.  Also, officers were members of the Corporate Parenting Forum as well as Councillors and so also were part of the delivery.

The Commission drew attention to the finding of the Ofsted report about the lack of performance reporting.  In reply, the Strategic Director Children’s Services explained that there were over 40 performance indicators relating to corporate parenting.  These included things such as the stability of the workforce, stability in the number of social workers employed and whether Children in Care had received health assessments.  Performance measures that could be understood by non-professionals were being developed for reporting to the Corporate Parenting Forum.

The Commission questioned the statement in the Corporate Parenting Forum’s Annual Report that there was a stable workforce, but was advised that the high turnover experienced had been in the Children in Need services.  The Annual report referred to Looked After Children services, which had a stable workforce. 

The Commission asked that, to assist its understanding of the report presented, some background information be provided to Members on who the partner agencies were, the number of Looked After Children over the last five years and reasons why these numbers appeared to be increasing. 

To assist with this, the Strategic Director Children’s Services offered to provide an information session on “Working Together”, the statutory guidance provided by the government.  In addition, the Performance Book that had been established following the recent Ofsted report would, over time, provide performance data and a narrative on that data that had not been available before.

The youth representatives welcomed the inclusion of the Children in Care Council’s views about the Corporate Parenting Forum in the Annual report, stressing the importance of taking account of these views.

In response to a question from the Commission about how corporate parents looked after children on a day-to-day basis, Councillor Russell explained that this included a range of things.  For example, consideration could be given to opportunities for young people and Children In Care such as swimming lessons or visits to different places, establishing culturally sensitive placements, and monitoring statistics and qualitative information from Children In Care Council representatives.  Part of the Corporate Parenting Forum’s role would be to consider, and make recommendations on, what more could be done.

It was noted that the Council employed a virtual head teacher, who was responsible for all Looked After Children.  When the reconstituted Corporate Parenting Forum met, the virtual head teacher would attend its meetings to report on how Looked After Children were doing with their education, including providing comparisons to national data.  From this, problems could be identified and ways of addressing them discussed.

Kinship relationships could be very important for Looked After Children and it was noted that some Looked After Children retained contact with their parents.  As a result, some lived with their parents, some were in kinship situations and others were with foster carers or in residential children’s homes.  In general, Council officers tried to place all younger children either with foster carers or kinship parents.  If the courts had ordered that children be adopted, they were placed in a residential home as near as possible to their family, unless there were reasons to move them away.

If children had to be placed away from their families, this could mean moving them away from the city.  Children also could be placed away from the city due to a shortage of foster and residential care in the city.  Reasons for placing children away from the city included them being at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation, being unable to stay with their parents for a variety of reasons, or having specialist needs that could not be met in the city.  These children kept their own social worker and Independent Reviewing Officer.  Council officers made quality assurance visits to the settings used.

Further explanations of these arrangements could be provided for Members if required.  This could include a breakdown of how many Looked After Children were placed in each setting.

Grooming of Looked After Children in terms of Child Sexual Exploitation was another important issue for the Council.  The recent Ofsted report had been fairly positive about how the Council dealt with Child Sexual Exploitation.  However, it was a very complex area and it was suggested that it could be useful for the Commission to look at this, either through undertaking training, or as a scrutiny review.

Councillor Russell stressed that, although there was a statutory cut-off date at which Looked After Children had to leave care, the Council often continued to support them beyond that time.  For example, foster carers often had continuing relationships with those they had cared for, such as while they were undertaking education, and the Council provided advice and support through a personal adviser for each care leaver. 

In addition, the Council had a statutory obligation to support children with disabilities who were going in to higher education up to the age of 25, (rather than 21, as for others going in to higher education).  They also would retain their personal advisers up to those ages.

The Commission welcomed the information provided and the Chair encouraged members of the Commission to volunteer for membership of the Corporate Parenting Forum, in order to strengthen the links between the Forum and this Commission.

AGREED:

1)     That the Strategic Director Children’s Services be asked to arrange workshop / training sessions for members of the Commission on the following:-

a)     helping them understand the recent report from the Office for Standards in Education on Services for Children in Need of Help and Protection, Children Looked After and Care Leavers and Review of the Effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Board;

b)     the statutory guidance “Working Together”;

c)     where Looked After Children were placed, the reasons for making these choices and the number of Looked After Children placed in each setting; and

d)     Child Sexual Exploitation, if not to be undertaken as a scrutiny review; and

2)     That the Strategic Director Children’s Services be asked to provide the following information to members of the Commission:-

a)     details of the Corporate Parenting Forum’s partner agencies;

b)     numbers of Looked After Children for the last five years, including comparisons with other authorities;

c)     reasons for the increase in the number of Looked After Children over the last five years;

d)     details of the actual figures for the percentages given on page 8 of the report, (page 20 of the agenda); and

e)     the Children’s Pledge.